TY - JOUR
T1 - Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation and the risk of emergent postoperative intubation after general anaesthesia in adults
T2 - a retrospective cohort study
AU - Hammer, Maximilian
AU - Santer, Peter
AU - Schaefer, Maximilian S.
AU - Althoff, Friederike C.
AU - Wongtangman, Karuna
AU - Frey, Ulrich H.
AU - Xu, Xinling
AU - Eikermann, Matthias
AU - Fassbender, Philipp
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 British Journal of Anaesthesia
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Background: We examined the association between emergent postoperative tracheal intubation and the use of supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) vs tracheal tubes. Methods: We included data from adult noncardiac surgical cases under general anaesthesia between 2008 and 2018. We only included cases (n=59 991) in which both airways were deemed to be feasible options. Multivariable logistic regression, instrumental variable analysis, propensity matching, and mediation analysis were used. Results: Use of a tracheal tube was associated with a higher risk of emergent postoperative intubation (adjusted absolute risk difference [ARD]=0.80%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64–0.97; P<0.001), and a higher risk of post-extubation hypoxaemia (ARD=3.9%; 95% CI, 3.4–4.4; P<0.001). The effect was modified by the use of non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs); mediation analyses revealed that 28.9% (95% CI, 14.4–43.4%; P<0.001) of the main effect was attributable to NMBA. Airway management modified the association of NMBA and risk of emergent postoperative intubation (Pinteraction=0.02). Patients managed with an SGA had higher odds of NMBA-associated reintubation compared to patients managed with a tracheal tube (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.65, 95% CI, 1.99–6.67 vs aOR=1.68, 95% CI, 1.29–2.18 [P<0.001], respectively). Conclusions: In patients undergoing procedures under general anaesthesia that could be managed with either SGA or tracheal tube, use of an SGA was associated with lower risk of emergent postoperative intubation. The effect can partly be explained by use of NMBAs. Use of NMBAs in patients with an SGA appears to increase the risk of emergent postoperative intubation.
AB - Background: We examined the association between emergent postoperative tracheal intubation and the use of supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) vs tracheal tubes. Methods: We included data from adult noncardiac surgical cases under general anaesthesia between 2008 and 2018. We only included cases (n=59 991) in which both airways were deemed to be feasible options. Multivariable logistic regression, instrumental variable analysis, propensity matching, and mediation analysis were used. Results: Use of a tracheal tube was associated with a higher risk of emergent postoperative intubation (adjusted absolute risk difference [ARD]=0.80%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64–0.97; P<0.001), and a higher risk of post-extubation hypoxaemia (ARD=3.9%; 95% CI, 3.4–4.4; P<0.001). The effect was modified by the use of non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs); mediation analyses revealed that 28.9% (95% CI, 14.4–43.4%; P<0.001) of the main effect was attributable to NMBA. Airway management modified the association of NMBA and risk of emergent postoperative intubation (Pinteraction=0.02). Patients managed with an SGA had higher odds of NMBA-associated reintubation compared to patients managed with a tracheal tube (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.65, 95% CI, 1.99–6.67 vs aOR=1.68, 95% CI, 1.29–2.18 [P<0.001], respectively). Conclusions: In patients undergoing procedures under general anaesthesia that could be managed with either SGA or tracheal tube, use of an SGA was associated with lower risk of emergent postoperative intubation. The effect can partly be explained by use of NMBAs. Use of NMBAs in patients with an SGA appears to increase the risk of emergent postoperative intubation.
KW - airway management
KW - emergent postoperative intubation
KW - neuromuscular blocking agent
KW - oxygen desaturation
KW - supraglottic airway device
KW - tracheal tube
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098879424&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85098879424&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bja.2020.10.040
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2020.10.040
M3 - Article
C2 - 33341223
AN - SCOPUS:85098879424
SN - 0007-0912
VL - 126
SP - 738
EP - 745
JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia
JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia
IS - 3
ER -